If you're anti grammar schools, then please answer me this:

[Proseccocino]

If your child had a gift for music, then you might send her to a school which excels musically.

If your child had a talent for sport, you might send him to an academy which excels at sport, one where he can really focus and develop in the area in which he is better than his peers.

And so on....!

So, if your child is intelligent, academically gifted... Why is it bad to say you would send her to a selective school where she can study along with other bright students?

If it's OK to separate children according to ability in sport or music or drama or technology, and send them to specialist schools which excel in these areas - why is it a different story if their talent with their academic ability?

We should just have one 2,500000 posting thread entitled Grammar school Discus!

It is just the same views going round and round again

sandholme
I'll stop posting when the policy decisions are made on the basis of evidence
till then I'll keep shouting for it to be done so
not a big ask

Ooh we could have a javelin as well

I was listening to Any Questions for a bit in the car earlier.

Peter Lilley, who is not a politician I would normally have a lot of time for, made some interesting points.

He said the UK is already very good at educating the "grammar stream". He said we are not so good at educating the less academic people to give good technical training, and as such, we have a low skilled work force, unlike some other European countries such as France and Germany.

He also said that perhaps the reason we, as a nation, value the more academically able students, is because the people who are making the decisions about educational policy have usually been university educated, themselves. (Although, surely that applies to most countries?)

I also heard Sarah Wollaston speaking this morning on Radio 4. She was very scathing about the new policy, and said you can't stand on the steps of Downing Street talking about increasing social mobility, and then announce a policy for which there is no evidence that it actually does that.

(I was somewhat comforted that even though Labour doesn't look like being much of an opposition, at the moment, some of the conservatives seem to be doing the job for them.)

LOL TalkinPeace, leafy anything is rare in my unfashionable, despised, cheap-for-london area, but I still had a choice of 3 great comps.

There is no 'post code lottery' for my nearest school (an 'outstanding' comp which gets excellent results) as the closest housing is a council estate that no one buys into for catchment.

It strikes me that there are shedloads of people on MN at the moment making ignorant, sweeping statements about the merits of aspects of the education system about which they know absolutely fuck all.

"It's a bell curve Mummy so there are few at the outer edges and more in the middle. That's why there are less places in special schools and less places in grammar schools and why the children who attend those settings can't (usually) attend local schools and have to travel to school."

I don't think that anyone can compare grammar school kids to special school kids. The majority of special school kids have such extreme needs that they need their own curriculum. A gifted child can self teach with guidance from a teacher. A fifteen year old with the brain of a three month old baby will get nothing out of a GCSE physics lesson.

LOL Eolian, you are probably very right. But you could say the same about government and that's a bit more scary.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement Eoian Would you care to elaborate?

zzzzz Fri 09-Sep-16 21:34:45 It's a bell curve Mummy

So you are saying that a child who scores 29 (just as an example) and gets a Grammar place needs to be in the Grammar so they are not the only bright kid in the school. However, the child that scores 28 will be best placed in the sec. mod. so they can experience being top of the class? I really don't see the logic in this, nor do I see why you are referring to the bell curve.

BTW, my DD is top of the "bell curve" for NVR but will not pass the 11 plus exam.

To answer the original question, if my child were a gifted athlete with a chance of representing her country, it would not be good enough for her achieve a top grade at PE for GCSE and A level. She would have to spend hours each day training before and/after school and would struggle to do well in both school and sport. A school which could fit lessons in around her training would be extremely useful.

If, on the other hand, DD was a gifted scientist with a good chance of getting into a world-class university to study physics, eventually doing a PhD and publishing ground-breaking research, then top grades in maths and sciences at GCSE and A-level combined with a general interest in and commitment to the subject would be enough, and that is are available at the comprehensive down the road.

Eolian Fri 09-Sep-16 21:53:22 It strikes me that there are shedloads of people on MN at the moment making ignorant, sweeping statements about the merits of aspects of the education system about which they know absolutely fuck all

Unfortunately they think they do because they went to a Grammar/Comp. 20 or so years ago.

If it's OK to separate children according to ability in sport or music or drama or technology, and send them to specialist schools which excel in these areas - why is it a different story if their talent with their academic ability?

these "specialist schools" don't actually exist.

NicknameUsed - ok. To start with, what kind of specialist schools is the OP talking about? Can she name some?

Even if she can, sending a teeny number of pupils to a place where they can nurture a very particular talent is different from systematically creaming off a big chunk of the pupils in the whole country and creating different schools for them when they will be studying the same subjects for the same type of exams as everyone else.

Secondly, lots of people think they know all about grammar schools because they went to one 25 years ago (as I did). The system is rather different now, to put it mildly.

zzzzz Fri 09-Sep-16 22:11:09 Many children at SS take GCSEs and Entry level qualifications

Do you actually have anything to back up this claim re. GCSEs?

What exactly do you mean by entry level qualifications?

My DH is very gifted in Music, he went to a normal state comp and did fine. I would probably do the same with a musically gifted child, so they got a well rounded education and a chance to learn skills outside their specialism.
Similarly with sport, although I might move to make training easier.
For both sport and music there are plenty of hours outside the school day of a normal school (if it is sympathetic) to devote to those interests.
I believe all three of my DC are intelligent. One has an SEN which would make passing the 11+ unlikely. One had a sympathetic school which allowed them to take advantage of certain musical opportunities they were offered. The third is highly intelligent but is doing just fine in a Comprehensive, and learning how to operate in the real world. She is also offered enhanced activities to stretch her. Their school regularily sends students to Oxbridge and medical/vet schools (12 each year at least).

Eolian Fri 09-Sep-16 22:19:13 they will be studying the same subjects for the same type of exams as everyone else.

I bet you didn't know that Grammar schools let them sit GCSE maths when they are in yr 9. That's what one OP seems to think anyway. Who am I to argue? After all my DC is in a selective school that doesn't advise that DCs sit exams early. Interestingly neither do any of my local privates.

I'm wondering if the OP might be a bit mistaken. Lots of schools were, for a while, designated as 'specialist music/technology/sports/language/science' etc colleges. This did not mean they were actually special schools for people who were able at those subjects. It meant the schools had ticked various boxes to get some funding for those subjects. It was utterly meaningless and cynical in most cases.

mummytime Fri 09-Sep-16 22:22:25 My DH is very gifted in Music, he went to a normal state comp and did fine. I would probably do the same with a musically gifted child, so they got a well rounded education and a chance to learn skills outside their specialism.

As far as I'm concerned, if there are 100% academically selective schools then there should be 100% art selective schools, 100% sports selective schools & 100% music selective schools. Once they open the door for selection by academic ability I don't see how they can object to selection by any other method imaginable if there is sufficient demand for it. Is that what people really want?

zzzzz Fri 09-Sep-16 22:27:46 Entry level qualifications allow you to progress onto college courses. A bit like Access courses for mature students

Oh please give examples, I'm quite open to being educated on this one.

who sends their sporty kids to a special sports school??? no, op, you spend hours before and after school paying out for private sports training. I guess the same could apply to the academically gifted?

if.we have grammars I would like.them to take the top 3 children from every single primary. see how that focuses.parents minds,!